The alliance: Conservative politicians and ‘secondary terrorists’

Date Published:

Two groups who benefit from the exact same outcomes.  Whether by design or by accident, both thrive when their actions produce the exact same outcomes. How do we stop these groups working in harmony?

In a previous post I define ‘secondary terrorists‘, who are those who thrive not because terrorist acts manage to change the world to help a cause, but on terrorist acts that create more people feeling oppressed from the response to the terrorism.  The more in the world who feel oppressed and become motivated,  the more recruits these terrorists can attract.  The more funding they can attract.

Now consider the rhetoric of some extreme politicians.  Those who assist in linking terror to Islam in general, which is exactly what helps these secondary terrorists, because it can only create more feelings of oppression and for every thousand or ten thousand who feel some oppression, there will be some who wish to take arms against that oppression.

Now consider how polls for these same politicians trend when an act of terror actually takes place.  The reality is that any politician who manages to have people harbouring fear against the groups the politicians identify for oppression and vilification,  will blame that group for the new terrorist act and increase support levels.

These same politicians are more vocal after a terrorist act because they have learned that is when their views attract the most support.  This is another way of saying their views will be most popular the more often their are terrorist acts.

Both these politicians and the secondary terrorists thrive in the same circumstances, and in reality both preach ‘fear thy enemy’.

Just imaging if a politician, backed by some vocal extreme press commentators, started saying that every one in the world with the same first name as you was a potential terrorist.  Then a terrorist organiser ensured that all who committed acts of terror stated that your name was their name.  How oppressed would you begin to feel.  How would you react every time anyone heard your name.  How long before some people who share your name, or have children or other loved ones with that name became radicalised?

 

 

 

[TheChamp-Sharing]
[TheChamp-FB-Comments]

Table of Contents

Categories

Trump’s 2025 Geopolitics Earthquake.

Although, while in the midst of it all, it is easy to miss the real impact, we are experiencing what we may soon see as the greatest political upheaval since at least the collapse of the soviet union.

Read More »

Why do so many Americans support Trump in 2024: They’re not all crazy or weird, many fear being disenfranchised.

To many people, both those within the US as well as perhaps most outside the US, a vote for Trump is seen as something hard to understand and even seen as the uneducated or the domain “others”: people seen as are very different from “normal people”. Yet 50% Americans are not radically different “others”, nor uneducated, nor stupid, even though around 50% will vote for trump.

With around 80% of Americans believing the country is on the “wrong track”, is it any surprise a large number feel if trends continue, they risk being disenfranchised by that “wrong track” and are desperate to believe only a big change can protect their rights?

Read More »

High Voltage DC for Australia.

draft. The problem: Additional grid connections for renewables. New grid connections are needed for renewables, largely because the right location for wind and solar is

Read More »

Flawed Australian voice of Indigenous People referendum: The irony of a voice campaign that failed to listen.

A tragic lost opportunity. Why didn’t those proposing the voice make changes to remove ambiguity and eliminated enough of the negative perception to win over enough support instead of simply declaring” “No, if that is how you see it you are either racist or stupid!” Was it just that there was no willingness to listen?

Australians had an opportunity in a constitutional referendum to righteously shout loudly “I am not a racist” by voting for a proposition that, at its core, could be seen as fundamentally flawed, divisive and even potentially racist, in the hope even a risk of moving in the direction of apartheid is still better than nothing.

The referendum resulted in a huge setback for action on indigenous disadvantage and while it did seem unlikely to do anything to unify Australians and offer more than some possible affirmative action, the division resulted with even sometimes “yes” voters being encouraged to also be racist.

This is a deeper look trying to see each side from the perspective of the other, with the reality that both sides had a point, and a vast majority of people do want equality and unity.

Perhaps it little more work could bring things together and offer a fresh enough perspective to move beyond just another well-intentioned patronising racism failure like the stolen generations?

Read More »

Discover more from One Finite Planet

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading